Last night, my missus was driving home from the gym and stopped at a red traffic light. Whilst stopped a bloke drove into the back of her causing minor damage to our motor. She pulls over and the fella drives off. She follows him, as suspects he is either drunk or has no insurance, flashes and beeps horn etc. She phones me and I phone the local police station who advise her to stop chasing and report to the local nick within 24 hours (fair enough). Anyway she is stubborn so continues following him and luckily for her the bloke pulls into Waitrose Car Park.
Anyway, he grabs his documents from behind the visor, gets out of the car and is absolutely bolloxed, not just over the limit I mean completely and utterly ruined. He legs it through some trees into a field. She dials 999 as this is now getting serious. Cop car turns up. In the meantime the idiot sneaks back in the car park and goes in the supermarket (comes out with a bag of booze). The copper finds him, with keys etc stuffed up his jumper and nicks him.
The guy was very obstructive and refuses a breath test. Police come round last night and take a statement off the wife and looks like he is banged to rights. This morning he says in an interview that he didnt think he had to stop but is still charged with failing to stop and refusing a breath test, it goes to court in a couple of weeks.
In the meantime, this bloke is free to drive. Clearly probably an alcoholic who has got away with it so far, but will probably drive pissed again tonight.
Is there any reason why the police cant force this bloke to do a breath test?
Should the police not ban him now as they saw how drunk he was?
When it goes to court he could argue that he was only slightly over the limit when in truth he probably drank a bottle of scotch?
Anyone know the legal ins and outs on this?
I dont think its right that this idiot could be driving again tonight.
0
Comments
They cant physically force him to do a breath test, but the fact he has refused to do so will be viewed very poorly by the courts and as far as I know they tend to throw heavy bans at people that do refuse.
Good on ya Missus BTW!!
What about if the CCTV at Waitrose catches him driving in at 7.45 and then he is nicked, drunk, at 8.00.
Is that enough to prosecute or am I being too hopeful?
Dont worry mate. He will get done
Personally i think she did the right thing, but i'm sure if it was my wife, i'd have probably said something about putting herself at risk.
My views to a few of your points-
"Clearly probably an alcoholic who has got away with it so far, but will probably drive pissed again tonight"
Not neccasarily true- most alcoholics don't get rip roaring drunk and are too practiced to get in their car, probably more likely a one off- but nevertheless, certainly deserves to be done as anyone who can get this drunk and be prepared to drive doesn't desearve the luxury of being able to use the road.
"Is there any reason why the police cant force this bloke to do a breath test"?
How- Short of strapping him to the floor and administering a forced blood test- how can they- the civil liberty peeps would have a field day.
Should the police not ban him now as they saw how drunk he was?
Again, innocent until proven guilty in this country, (unless it's the Inland revenue)
When it goes to court he could argue that he was only slightly over the limit when in truth he probably drank a bottle of scotch?
This won't effect the level of the sentance- if i'm correct the penalty, and ramifications for failing ( at whatever level ) and refusing are the same/?
The police will give a statement and the judge/ magistrate can decide on the level of ban.
Not if you refuse. The OB cant pin you down and stick a needle in you as its a contravention of your Human Rights
Oh and believe me Stanmore, I was shouting at her to come home. But once she has a bee in her bonnet...
1. If he was arrested and taken to the local nick he would at that point been invited again to take a breath test on the "more sensitive/sophisticated equipment" they have there. This is normal practice, the road side equipment is prone to error.
2. If he refuses again, or indeed if he does not, he will be offered a blood test/ to give a sample for analysis. Another refusal, if the officers have reasonable suspicion could be the opportunity for a formal charge. Basically if you are formally charged and have any kind of excuse then a medical test is your only defence.
3. He left the scene of an accident, this will be a separate charge.
4. He failed to report an accident, another separate charge.
5. By refusing to take the tests offered he has effectively attempted to avoid arrest, Plod take a particular dislike to this one.
6. If he was that pissed and leary with it they will also try to have him for obstruction of and/or abuse/assault of a Police officer in the course of his duties. Again Plod are very fond of this one.
All in all the prat has stitched himself up good and proper, the only downer from your point of view is that his insurance Co could refuse to pay out, ( remove cover where driving under the influence is involved) and thus you could end up with a no fault claim against your own insurance. You can take the matter up by way of a civil action and if you do - the best of luck mate!!
She has received his insurance details this morning so hopefully no problems with the pay out.
Judging from your summary he has severely shot himself in the foot.
JW- been a fair while since i arranged motor insurance so stand to be corrected, but i think that the motor insurers wouldn't be able/ try to get out of a third party claim (ie damage to Mrs Southend's motor)- they may seek to claim redress against their client but that's his problem.
lets effing hope so eh
That would explain it. He wasn't drunk, he'd shot himself in the foot and that's why he was driving erractically and didn't stop. He needed to get to Waitrose to buy some booze to put on the wound to prevent any infections.
Having lost some blood he could give blood or a breath test without fainting.
The defence rests it's case M'lud.
Only joking Southend. Lock him up with the guy who was clocked doing 172 PMH on an A Road.
i will bow to your superior knowledge here Stanmore, not being an Insurance professional, it's just how it was explained to me when I went through it.
Thats good news mate, shame it wasn't his head he shot himself in.
never had an accident though!!
I have once driven when I really shouldn't have and got nicked for it....Best thing to have happened IMO. I shouldn't have been on the road and was a f**King dick for doing so. Fortunately no one got hurt or anything, not sure how I'd have lived with myself if anything had.
2 yr ban and now don't touch a drop now if I'm driving. Not something I'm proud of doing at all.
Most important thing is that you didn't hurt anyone, anyone who jokes about this stuff is missing the point.
It now really winds me up when you see people who you know should not be on the road, leave a pub or bar insisting that they are fine and jump behind the wheel usually with mates in tow. I'm not normally a zealot and tend to let grown ups get on with their lives but sometimes ....
My mum told me a story about my grandad getting done for drunk in charge of a horse years ago, I am also sure the horse was not his either.
lol dude
Have driven on Sunday mornings a few times though when I must have been running it close and not even thought about it until later.
You just don't think, you've been to bed so it's like a new day when you wake up, you haven't had a drink and so you're fine. It's only later you realise you were smashed out of your face at 5am when you went to bed so even driving at 11am or noon the next day is dodgy. You wouldn't get smashed out of your face at lunchtime and then dirve your car home from the station which is the same kind of time difference.